The origin of the Usher of the Black Rod goes back to early fourteenth century England . Today, with no royal duties to perform, the Usher knocks on the doors of the House of Commons with the Black Rod at the start of Parliament to summon the members. The rod is a symbol for the authority of debate in the upper house.
We of The Black Rod have since 2005, adopted the symbol to knock some sense and the right questions into the heads of Legislators, pundits, and other opinion makers.

About Me

We are citizen journalists in Winnipeg. When not breaking exclusive stories, we analyze news coverage by the mainstream media and highlight bias, ignorance, incompetence, flawed logic, missed angles and, where warranted, good work. We serve as the only overall news monitors in the province of Manitoba. We do the same with politicians (who require even more monitoring.) EMAIL: black_rod_usher@yahoo.com

Wednesday, November 06, 2013

The acquital of Harry Bakema is an indictment of journalism in Winnipeg

This is what passes for professional journalism in Winnipeg?

Of
eveything written about the political persecution of former East St.
Paul police chief Harry Bakema, the Saturday, Nov. 2, column by Winnipeg
Free Press scribe Dan Lett stands as the most contemptible.

Lett
professes to be a "professional" journalist. He even gives lectures to
budding journalists on how he does it. God help the profession. He
hurls insults at bloggers who dare tell him how to do his job and where
he fails miserably, because, of course, HE is the professional.

Lett,
you'll remember, was at the head of the media lynch mob in 2008 that
howled for the head of every police officer and lawyer connected with
the prosecution of Const. Derek Harvey-Zenk, who caused the death of
Crystal Taman when he rear-ended her car which was stopped at a red
light.

The
occasion was a government-sponsored show trial, disguised as a public
inquiry, into the fatal accident. The rabid pack of reporters and
commentators abandoned any pretense of legitimate reporting, choosing
instead to mock and attack anyone who dared to say anything that
contradicted their agreed-upon version of the facts---that there had
been a massive cover-up by police to hide the fact that Harvey-Zenk was
drunk when the accident happened.

Only
The Black Rod stood up for truth. We faced down the mob. One against
all. It still stands as our finest hour. And we do it again today.

A
special prosecutor, appointed by the province, examined the case
against Harvey-Zenk, the precedents in law, the decisions by the
Manitoba Court of Appeal, and he decided to accept a plea bargain. Zenk
pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death and other charges
that referenced impairment as a result of drinking were dropped. He
was instantly villified for being in on the cover-up.

The
province ordered a public inquiry, which professed to show that as
many as 40 others were involved in the cover-up, mainly police officers
from Winnipeg. Lett uses this as the centrepoint of his lament over
the aquital of Harry Bakema on all charges, including perjury and
obstruction of justice.

Lett actually declares that a show trial has more validity than a free court of law! Because the Taman "public inquiry" was just that---a Stalineque show trial.

The
verdict was decided in advance; the witnesses were coached; no cross
examination was allowed; the odd time when a witness failed to say
what was expected, the Inquiry council either called a rebuttal witness
against his own witness or held a, ahem, private interview with the
witness to, ahem, refresh her memory before testifying properly a second
time.

But
when the same case was heard in a real court, when witnesses knew
they could be charged with perjury, when a real judge heard those same
witnesses cross-examined under the rules of law by real lawyers....well,
the result was radically different.

Roger
Salhany, the alleged judge who conducted the public inquiry, is Lett's
hero. But Salhany was nothing more than a hand-picked prop reading a
script, nothing more than Ontario Superior Justice Harriet Sachs was
going to be at a "live theatre performance" featuring a mock trial of
global warming proponent David Suzuki. When her starring role was
exposed by Ezra Levant on Sun News, she got cold feet (joke intended)
and surrendered her role to her understudy.

In fact, the Manitoba Court of Appeal repudiated Salhany's version of the law in a subsequent ruling:

"The
husband of Crystal Taman... has been called upon repeatedly to make
sense out of the madness that surrounds his wife's death and the
ensuing police investigation." Right, there's an unbiased source.
Oh, and he's going to comment on the "madness" of the police
investigation into this wife's death. Don't tip your hand, Dan.

"What's clear to the general public is foggy to the people who make the decisions," said the husband. That's right. Why bother with a trial. Let's just go straight to the hanging.

Lett described Bakema as "a man whose actions were laid bare in a 2008 judicial inquiry. It is that inquiry that informed the public about the steps Bakema took to shield Harvey-Zenk from prosecution."

There you have it. The "professional" journalist declares the cover-up as fact, evidence be damned.

" Salhany could not assign criminal responsibility for any of the transgressions he uncovered."

Because it wasn't real. The "inquiry" was a performance. The only test of the evidence is when it was heard in a real court, before a real judge and under real rules of trial. It was - and no "criminal responsibility" was determined. Doesn't that make you wonder about Salhany?

The refusal to report that fact is the real crime.

"...there are aspects of the decision that certainly seem to be generous to the accused."

That such a sentence could appear in the daily newspaper is astonishing.

It's
called the presumption of innocence, Dan. It's the core value of the
Canadian justice system. The Crown has to prove its case beyond a
reasonable doubt. Any doubt must be given to the accused. It's not
"being generous" to accord someone his human right to a fair trial.

"Bakema repeatedly demonstrated his knowledge of how to manage a crime scene like that with each decision he made to stop others from documenting Harvey-Zenk's intoxication."
That's a blatant lie. If the judge had determined Bakema stopped
others from documenting the intoxication of someone who caused a fatal
car accident he would have been convicted.

But
the judge found Bakema NOT GUILTY because the allegation was NOT
proved. Repeating the allegation does not make it true. It makes you
GUILTY of wilfully reporting a falsehood.

"... we have to deduce Moar did not find Bakema acted wilfully to obstruct the investigation."

Duh. You don't have to deduce anything Dan.

The
judge found Bakema NOT GUILTY. That's saying it clearly and
succinctly. Bakema was NOT GUILTY of obstructing justice.

And yet this
"professional" journalist won't admit the obvious.

"The public will not understand the vagaries that allowed Bakema to escape justice on these charges....And that even the most obvious evidence of wilful illegality can always, given the right accused, be explained away as unintentional errors."

The
fact that a "professional" journalist can get away with blatant
propagandizing like this is evidence of how far the profession has
fallen. The real question is how and why reporters have failed to follow the real stories that flow from the Bakema aquital.

*
The RCMP investigated allegations of obstruction of justice against
Bakema BEFORE the public inquiry and determined there was no credible
evidence to support a prosecution. Who authorized a second investigation and subsequent prosecution which ended in exactly the verdict the RCMP predicted?

*
the NDP government abused the justice system to force Bakema and others
to testify at the inquiry, then used this testimony against him at a
trial.
This abuse of government power should be investigated and the people
responsible, right up to the Justice Minister, prosecuted

* Following public inquiries, the NDP has given millions of dollars to men who were convicted by juries of murder.
Will the government pay Harry Bakema for at least five years of
persecution, the cost and stress of a phony public inquiry and an
unwarranted criminal trial?

*********

The
judge who sentenced Zenk made a statement in the courtroom regarding
justice. The words he spoke have never been more appropriate and we give the final say to Judge Ray Wyant:

"They want their pound of flesh. They want to hear the clanking of the cell door.

But
let me make it absolutely clear, Mr. Zenk, those factors are not
something this court or any court can entertain in deciding a fit and
appropriate sentence. To do so would corrupt the very foundations of our
justice system and plunge our system into chaos. So it does not matter
what we think happened, what we must do is only sentence or decide
cases on the evidence before us.

If
we were to substitute our opinions or the opinions of others for proof
and evidence, we would surely undermine fundamentally our system of
justice. For
to replace our feelings or opinions for facts would mean that any
citizen could be the subject of arbitrary justice, of decisions based,
not on evidence and proof, but on innuendo and personal biases.